MIT-DUSP Urban Sustainability Evaluation
Causal Mapping: Urban Food & Agriculture
GENERAL ORGANIZATION
The causal map for tree planting is divided into three major groupings, based on
common program assessment techniques:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Inputs
Primary Outputs
Secondary Outputs
Immediate Outcomes
Theoretical Outcomes
Inputs are the resources used to develop the program. For example, in the case of
urban agriculture programs, funding and personnel are categorized as inputs.
Outputs are the services or goods produced by the program. The most obvious outputs
of interest, in this case, are the farms and gardens currently in existence. (There are
primary and secondary outputs; primary outputs are elements of program design, while
secondary outputs are program results.)
Outcomes are indirect impacts that are related to a program’s goals or objectives (and
in theory caused by program outputs). For example, availability to fresh food and the
decreased environmental and economic costs of transporting food are urban
food/agriculture program outcomes. To simplify the process of mapping outcomes that
are only sometimes measurable, and sometimes broadly theoretical, the causal map is
divided into two mirrored branches – Immediate Outcomes and Theoretical Outcomes.
The first order of nodes of these branches are identical mirrors of each other;
subsequent branches differ in the following ways:
Immediate Outcomes maps the ways that a particular program outcome is measured, in
direct relation to the program. For example, onsite water retention would be measured
by cubic feet retained per tree per year.
Theoretical Outcomes maps the causal chain of program outputs without specifically
referring to measurements or metrics. While the ‘onsite water retention’ branch in
Immediate Outcomes shows how the water retention is measured, the Theoretical
Outcomes branch broadly describes the consequences of the onsite water retention:
more water available to plants, which leads to less irrigation costs; increase
groundwater recharge leading to increased water quality; less stormwater runoff leading
to less reliance on sewer infrastructure, and so on.
This organization facilitates an analysis that allows us to answer the following research
questions:
1
1. How, and to what extent do particular inputs lead to/cause outputs? For
example, how do land grants from the city affect the number of community
gardens?
2. How, and to what extent do different primary outputs cause secondary outputs?
For example, how do the program mechanisms that require volunteerism affect
the ongoing organizational efficacy of community gardens?
3. Where data is available, a final question is: Do actual outcomes align with
expected outcomes (based on theory). For example, do one million trees
actually produce X average temperature decrease or Y fewer heat related
deaths?
The following sections outline how this form of data organization might be applied in
urban food/agriculture programs.
INPUTS
Inputs are divided into five top-level resource categories that are expected to apply to all
other sustainability programs:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Political Context
Financial Resources
Organizational Structure & Resources
Technical and Planning Resources
Historical Factors
Each of these categories is described here. Sub-level categories are also explicated.
Political Context
The political context refers to a number of aspects of the internal programmatic politics
as well as the external political environment and response to the program. External
politics include the level of conflict and the extent and nature of publicity. Given that
opposition to a city policy, from business, environmental, or other interests, can slow,
weaken, or even thwart the adoption of that policy, it is important to capture the level of
opposition in each program. Furthermore, the publicity a program receives, from local
papers and other widely available media, can bolster or deflate support for a city
program because media…
Internal politics to be captured in data include internal conflict, such as that between
agencies or the disjuncture caused by term turnover, as well as the type of internal
support, specifically the existence of a “champion,” such as a city mayor, who might be
largely responsible for rallying support for the program.
Finally, given that ideas in politics are as powerful, if not more so, than rationality when
informing decision-making, we look at how the program benefits (or costs) are framed,
both internally and externally. In the case of tree planting, we look at how the benefits of
tree planting are discussed: are they framed as “economic” benefits, “social” benefits,
or, perhaps, both. Do adversaries frame costs in terms of social losses? In theory, the
way a program is framed…
2
Financial Resources
The tracking of financial resources is one of the most widely available metrics we have
to measure program inputs. Financial resources here refers to monetary funding of any
kind – internal, external, governmental, private, etc. The long term efficacy of a
program rests largely upon not only the overall amount of program funding, but the
dependability of that funding and the dependability of the sources from which the
funding comes. Financial resources is therefore broken down into the following subheadings: adequacy, allocation, sustainability, and solvency.
Adequacy: For each program, we expect to find a threshold below which a program
cannot effectively or efficaciously operate within a city of a particular size or population,
given a particular set of program goals. Through the survey and interview questions,
we hope to get a sense for whether the city is operating under the threshold needed
given their program goals. This may be simply a statement that the program is overbudget or under-funded; or, it may be signaled by a continual postponement of
benchmarks. It is also important to note the relationship between budgetary and
political priority. The under-funding of a program may be compounded by, and/or the
result of, a lack of political priority, so the program may suffer not only from lack of
financial resources, but also from lack of organizational and political resources as well.
Allocation: The way that money is allocated within a program may be an indication of
areas that are being neglected or underfunded, or conversely, program areas that may
be skimming off the top (administration, for example) at the expense of other areas
(follow-up and maintenance, for example). Or, trees may be planted in predominantly
high-income or tourist areas while low-income areas are neglected.
Sustainability: This refers to the dependability of funding over the long-term. The
perception of program funding as being either ongoing, finite, or uncertain will have an
impact on how the program is designed and implemented, and on program outputs. For
example, a tree planting program with finite funding may choose not to include a
maintenance program, or conversely they may be forced to find innovative ways of
ensuring that other entities maintain the trees once the program is discontinued. On
the other hand, a program with reliable, ongoing funding may be able to develop longterm strategies for community engagement and education, tree maintenance, data
collection, and collaboration with related programs.
Solvency: Whether or not a program is operating within its budget can have important
implications for whether the program will be able to maintain its current operations. If a
program is operating under a threat of scarcity, it may find it difficult to meet its stated
goals, much less improve upon them. Similarly, if the department in which a program is
housed is over-budget, depending on the prioritization of the program, it may face a
rationing of resources, or even risk being cut.
Organizational Structure & Resources
Many aspects of the way an implementing organization is structured, the types of
resources at its disposal, and the types of internal obstacles the organization is faced
with, have implications for what the program can ultimately produce in terms of outputs
and outcomes. While some of this information can be gleaned from program budgets,
3
such as allocated staff, much of this information will be anecdotal, and will come in the
form of answers to the survey and interview questions.
Authority: In some cases, the implementing organization may not have full authority to
carry out all aspects of the program. Program administrators may require sign-off from
an outside individual or entity, may face regulatory barriers in other departments, or may
need to coordinate with other departments or legislative bodies. For example, a tree
planting program may need to contend with existing building codes and coordinate with
the Department of Transportation to ensure that tree planting does not interfere with
existing infrastructure. When coordination of authority is necessary, the degree to
which the other department or party is cooperative is important in ease of
implementation; this is often dependent upon the capacity that the other party has to
dedicate time and resources as well as the priority that it places on the program,
conflicts of interest, or the recognition that it receives for its cooperation.
Human Capital: There is a range of human resources that are typically available to
programs. At one end of the spectrum, a program might have a full-time staff with a
diverse set of applicable expertise and experience allocated within the budget, including
arborists, planners/program administrators, landscaping/maintenance, technical,
community organizers, etc. At the other end of the spectrum, program implementation
may be left up to the staff of the department in which it is housed, such as the
Department of Public Works or the Parks and Recreation Department. If the program is
one of many of their responsibilities, and/or if they do not have sufficient expertise and
experience, program implementation may stall as other departmental tasks are given
higher priority. However, this is not necessarily always the case. If the program has a
champion within the department, or the program has a high political profile, the
department may dedicate more of its resources to reaching program goals, even if the
program does not have a budgeted staff. Conversely, if there is a full- or part-time
budgeted staff dedicated to the program, it is important to look at whether the collective
skills, experience, and number of staff are sufficient to implement program goals.
If the program does not have sufficient human capital to carry out all aspect of program
implementation, how is the program designed to bridge that gap? In addition to city
staff, many tree planting programs rely on independent contractors, community partners
or private landowners to plant and/or maintain the trees. If this is the case, it is
important to understand the nature of these relationships – what role these entities play
in planting, maintenance and education, to what extent the program is dependent on
these relationships, and what steps the city takes to ensure the quality of site selection,
planting and maintenance by these external entities.
Obstacles: Organizational obstacles can undermine program efficacy or
implementation – these obstacles may or may not be program specific. Regulatory
disputes can postpone implementation indefinitely, especially if there are several
departments involved and/or political or financial stakes attached to regulation changes.
Changing regulations can be a time-consuming process, and sometimes requires
legislative approval. Both intra- and inter-departmental turf disputes can also stall
program progress. This could be conceptual turf – either wanting to take the credit for a
program, or not wanting to take on the responsibility. Or, it could be physical turf –the
Department of Transportation may not want the tree planting program interfering with its
4
street widening plans, for example. Personnel turnover can have the effect of wiping
out a significant amount of embedded program knowledge if measures aren’t taken to
pass that information and social capital on to the next person; if a program champion
leaves, the impact to the program can be devastating if no one steps into their shoes.
Finally, something as simple as personality conflicts or a siloed organizational culture
can stifle cooperation and innovation.
Technical Tools
Technical resources here refer to tools that allow scientific knowledge, in the field of
urban forestry, to be practically applied. For example, geographical information systems
(GIS) or tree benefits software would be considered a technical resource. Planning
resources refer very specifically to the presence of planning expertise and the
development of a comprehensive program plan.
It seems probable that access to and use of certain technologies, during the program’s
initiation and planning stages, might lead to a more successful tree planting program, in
terms of viability of outputs and the extent of beneficial outcomes reaped. For example,
a city that uses the Forest Service’s i-Tree software to decide on the locations of new
trees may have a greater impact on environmental quality than a city that does not use
urban forestry technology, as the software can be used to maximize environmental
outcomes.
The tools cited (i-Tree, CityGreen, and GIS) in the questions below have been chosen
because they are the most used in urban forestry planning. In fact, i-Tree and CityGreen
may be the only widely available and PC friendly pieces of software that can calculate
environmental quality benefits based on user input of spatial data and tree
characteristics (see technical memo). GIS is a commonly used geospatial mapping
system that can be used in concert with the forestry software, or alone, to map and
analyze urban forest structure and function.
Program Planning
Like technical analysis, upfront planning establishes goals and objectives, establishes a
framework for program implementation and management (as opposed to a more
reactive, muddling through approach), and may allow a program to avoid budget crises
and more efficiently deal with unexpected turns. However, simply the existence of a
comprehensive plan is not enough; it should also be perceived as legitimate by the
public and other stakeholders, be enforceable in some manner, and be flexible (lit
needed). Questions have been developed with these criteria in mind.
Historical
The historical context in which a sustainability program is developed may determine
aspects of its design, level of support, and implementation. In the case of tree planting
programs, a number of cities have prior experience with related programs, which have
informed more recent ones. For example, in 1982(?) Los Angeles spearheaded a tree
planting program in advance of the 1984 Olympics. The program was largely a failure,
as many trees perished due to improper maintenance and care. The memory of this
5
program has impacted both the design of the new one million tree program and fed the
rhetoric of naysayers and supporters.
The data collection for historical inputs consists of a summary of relevant historical
events, to be collected during interviews and surveys.
OUTPUTS
Infrastructure
Infrastructure here refers to the physical building blocks of the program, and the
interesting descriptive details about those outputs: how many trees, what type, health,
location, design characteristics of the landscape planters, site selection, and site
condition. We theorize that these physical details related to how the specific trees were
planted affect their environmental performance (economic, environmental, and aesthetic
benefits) and longevity, and thereby affect program outcomes.
Material and Technical Assistance
Advocacy
Maintenance Program
Maintenance programs refer to the ongoing management efforts to support the health of
the trees. We theorize that varying levels of maintenance will affect the long-term health
and longevity of the trees, which are the key output of urban forestry programs.
Policy Tools
Policy tools refers to the regulatory approaches included in the program, including
financial incentives, ordinances, design standards, and technical assistance. The broad
“policy” heading is intended to capture the non-physical tools a city might utilize to
support a program.
Data & Analysis
Data and analysis is intended to capture whether the program includes short- or longterm evaluation of effectiveness, and whether that intent to measure and analyze results
leads to higher fidelity of implementation and improved outcomes.
Educational Programs
Questions about educational programs are intended to determine whether program subcomponents designed to disseminate information to the public, mobilize or train
volunteers, or provide maintenance training to private parties impact the public’s
enthusiasm for the program, support long-term maintenance goals, or otherwise impact
the program’s outcomes. An apathetic or disapproving public might negatively impact
the implementation of the program, as might inadequate maintenance in a program that
relied on private landowners to care for trees.
6